Punjab

Sangrur

CC/321/2016

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prop./partner - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Inderjeet Arora

02 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  321

                                                Instituted on:    10.03.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.08.2016

 

Gurpreet Singh son of Sukhwinder Singh, resident of Mahian Patti, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Rinku Mobile Care, Balial Road, Bhawanigarh through its prop/partner, District Sangrur.

2.             Micromax Informatics Limited, 21/14, Phase-2, Naraina Industrial Area, Delhi-110 028 through its Managing Director.

3.             M/s. Kings Electronics, Thalesh Bagh, Opposite BSNL Park, Sangrur 148 001 through its partner/prop.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               Shri Sonu Markan, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri Ashish Grover, Adv.

For OP No.1 & 3       :               Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

               

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurpreet Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant purchased one Micromax mobile set model Micromax Canvas Gold  from OP number 1  on 10.11.2014 for Rs.14,800/- vide invoice dated 10.11.2014 with one year warranty of the mobile set against any manufacturing defect or poor workmanship. It is further averred in the complaint that in the month of July, 2015 the problem of blank display arose therein, as such he approached OP number 3, and the OP number 3 told  the complainant to leave the mobile set with him and to collect later on and as such, the OP number 3 returned the mobile set with an assurance that there would be not problem in future. Again in the month of November, 2015, the said problem of blank display arose, and the OP number 3 kept the mobile set on 09.11.2015 and issued job sheet number N090336111520194278 dated 09.11.2015 and told the complainant to get the same after 10-15 days, but thereafter when the complainant approached the OP number 3 to get the mobile set in question, the OP number 3 did not return the same, despite repeated visits of the complainant. As such,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the mobile set with a new one or in the alternative to refund him the purchase price of the mobile set i.e. Rs.14,800/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realisation and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that OP number 1 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 1 was proceeded exparte. But, later on  OP number 3 was also proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 2 and 3, the sale and purchase of the mobile set in question is denied for want of knowledge. However, it is denied that the complainant approached the OPs in the year 2015.  Further it is stated that the complainant approached OP number 3 for problem of blank display on 09.11.2015 and in this regard job sheet was issued.  It is averred that the complainant was called to take back the mobile set, but he did not turn up. It is stated that the complainant is himself in fault by not taking back the mobile set from the OP number 3. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2  and 3 has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of job sheet, Ex.C-2 copy of bill, Ex.C-3 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs  has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit of Nirbhai Singh and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.               Ex.C-2 is the copy of the invoice issued by OP number 1 to the complainant for sale of the mobile set in question for Rs.14,800/-, which clearly proves that the complainant had purchased the mobile set and availed the services of the OP number 1, which has been manufactured by OP number 2.  It is further an admitted fact of the complainant that the mobile set in question purchased by the complainant became defective during the warranty period and suffered the problem of blank display as is evident from the copy of job card sheet Ex.C-1. Further it is an admitted fact of the Ops that the mobile set in question was having one year warranty against any of the defects.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 and 3 chose to remain exparte and even did not appear to deny this allegation of the complainant that he approached OP number 3 to get the problem of the mobile set rectified. Further the complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-3 to support his averments in the complaint.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs number 2 and 3 is that the mobile set in question was defective one and the same was repaired and the complainant was called, but the complainant did not come to collect the mobile set in question.  But, to prove this fact, the Ops have produced nothing on record any cogent evidence, much less expert report of any independent expert/engineer to prove that the mobile in question is free from any defects. The learned counsel for OP number 3 has also produced  the sworn affidavit of one Nirbhai Singh as Ex.OP2/1, wherein it has been stated that after receipt of the mobile set from the complainant, the complainant never came back to get back the mobile set and that there is no negligence on the part of the OPs.  Moreover, the OPs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they ever called the complainant to get back the delivery of the mobile set and even during the present proceedings the OP number 2 and 3 did not make any efforts/offer to deliver the mobile set in question to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the Ops that why they did not return the mobile set in question to the complainant and kept the same with them without any reason.    In the circumstances, it is clear that the mobile set in question supplied to the complainant is defective one which is beyond repairs.     As such, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. 

 

 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct OPs number 2 and 3 to deliver the complainant a new mobile set of the same make and model or in the alternative to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.14,800/- being the cost of the mobile set along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 10.03.2016 till realisation.  The OPs shall also pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

 

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 2, 2016.

 

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member